I personally don't hunt. Never have and if I do I don't intend to hunt deer.
However I simply said that a side effect of hunting is that it keeps the population down. Again I reference the Indiana situation.
I don't know what they do where you live, but where I live people don't shoot things to watch them writhe and die. There are several laws against that and the law enforcement here is pretty strict about it.
I stated it's difficult to hear Kas talk about stealing while supporting killing. I never stated that Kas was stealing, or even that his opinion was invalid.
...
I'm saying the opposite. Where you get your ideas from, I don't know. No, I would not listen to Stalin protest murder while cleaning the proverbial knife he had used to comit that act.
Uhh... sure. Whatever.
Kas supports killing, but not stealing. That sounds like skewed morals to me.
You don't get it. If Ghandi had supported killing animals, no one would have listened to him when he said not to kill the British. It would be like listening to a vegitarian talk about his last hunting trip.
As a matter of fact, some people do care who kills and who does not. And Kas does not steal, perhaps, but if he DID and talked about how it was wrong to do so, his opinion would be invalid.
Kas admonishes stealing, but supports killing. That's my point.
If you're going to try and argue a case, at least @#%$ make sense.
Okay Drayson, I shall spell it clear and simple English so that you can understand with little to no difficulty:
You are stating and I quote:
Unless there is a hidden meaning here I'm not grasping, this means that you won't listen to what he's saying because he hunts.
That is wrong, fallacious, and an inappropriate way to view things when, in all actuality, he is making sense from his point of view. He thinks it's stealing, he's not trying to lecture you or anything, he is saying he thinks it's stealing.
I don't care if he's shot one of everything in the forest and lines his rooms with their carcasses...if he thinks stealing is wrong that's a valid concern.
I'll explain what this means basically:
Just because you don't like one of his actions doesn't mean that every opinion of his is strangely off, invalid, and wrong. He likes to hunt, you don't, leave it at that it's over. What does his desire to hunt have to do with his opinion on music sharing? You're bringing that up to detract from the main issue.
So if he said that murder was wrong, and he committed murder, then in your opinion murder would be OK because it's the opposite of what he stated?
Murder is wrong no matter who says it.
Theft is wrong no matter who says it, contesting it just makes it seem as though you endorse theft yourself.
He supports the hunting of animals in the wild.
He doesn't support the idea of running a man down in an alley and gunning him to death (That I know of).
But hypothetically, even if he did...his opinion would STILL be valid if he said that theft was wrong.
You're taking hunting a wild animal that probably has no objections to killing you as some kind of unadulterated murder. I'm certain you've eaten a steak or a cheeseburger at one point in your life. By your set of morals you would be even worse because you won't even do the dirty deed yourself. You just want to reap in the benefits from it.
But again, what does his idea of hunting, not killing necessarily, just hunting (Which man and animals have done since day one) have to do with his ideas of theft?
...?
If Ghandi supported hunting to survive...he'd somehow no longer be a pacifist? That makes a lot of sense. Seeing as you don't wage war when you hunt...you kill only what you need to survive.
I find it funny that on your website, you posted a defense of the Palestinians against the Israelis, who kill quite frequently for religious fervor. This is kind of hypocritical. Kas hunts because of his morals, and they kill civilians for their morals...are people only wrong when it suits you then?
Opinions are only invalid if they're lies, not if you disagree with their other actions. He said stealing was wrong, that has absolutely nothing to do with what he does with a gun.
It's called a slur, it's a popular tactic in debate. Once you realize you cannot defeat the enemy by attacking the issue at hand, you attempt to bring up other unrelated issues.
You're confused, allow me to help. I support hunting. There's a difference between hunting, and killing. You generally apply the word 'killing' in its sole form when you are referencing the murder of a human being, not a game animal.
I also note that no one (but Kilam) addressed my post on our responsibility to keep animal populations in check.
You don't want to refute his point so you're trying to defame him.
You're calling his hunting of wild animals to be some kind of sadistic game of murder where he dispatches out into the wild to slaughter innocent baby deer that can barely walk while he dances and bathes in their own blood.
Kas is right, I was the one who addressed the population issue, I was pointing out an example of where fanaticism toward anti-hunting caused severel problems.
There's more instances of that.
People for a while weren't allowed to hunt deer in several areas of California, and because of that mountain lions had an over abundance of food. They wouldn't eat it all and so children would find roasting carcasses lying near ponds, discarded near trails, or left on the road.
Meanwhile mountain lions would get overly fat and lazy and essentially forget many important hunting skills.
But wait that mountain lion has to be wrong right? Because it's murdering too.
Now I also notice you quoted the dictionary but so kindly only picked and chose what parts of the definition you wanted to accept.
Murder always has been and always will be the unlawful taking of a human life. Yes it can stretch to be the murdering of an animal but that instance is not hunting within regulation. There's no crime in that.
Unless you are a very strict vegetarian though, I shall have to say your claims have no credit either.
Of course, if you're going to judge him for hunting, why shouldn't I judge you for playing a female character? Why shouldn't I judge you for judging people? Really, all I'm saying is stay on the main focus and don't detract into various arguements, denials and slurs.
He was pointing at your inability to refute his point and so you tried to detract from the main issue, which is called a slur as well. He was pointing out how you have no valid arguement and so you have drawn from the past history of "Well I don't agree with this action that he does, so that action must be wrong."
But you are again committing a fallacy by denying that you ever said it and trying to turn it back on us simply because we are American.
No he's pointing out how you reference his hunting as though that has anything to do with his opinion of theft.
He's by definition a killer. Because, as is stated, murder is the unlawful taking of life, usually a human life.
Now since it's not against the law for him to hunt animals within regulation, I guess it's not murder is it?
As well...if this debate gets any more heated I will have to respectfully decline from it.
Mr./Mrs./Miss Drayson I do request that you tone it down a tad as this is a relatively interesting discussion that I'd hate to have to throw out the window just to prevent a flamefest.
We have a right to our own individual beliefs, and have a right to state our opinions. However, when people misuse the bible for personal gain and glory, I think people are stepping over the line. Not to say that is what Ren is doing exactly, but I think he knows what it really means. God put animals on this earth for a source of food for us.
